The Ministry of Justice’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) reforms created knock-on costs for other parts of government, failed to target legal aid at those who need it most and did not discourage unnecessary litigation, a devastating report by the Justice Select Committee has found.
LASPO removed legal aid from most civil law areas, including debt, housing, immigration, benefits, family and employment advice. The Committee’s report into the impact of changes to civil legal aid under LASPO, published this week, highlights the impact on those seeking legal advice and concludes that the Ministry has failed to demonstrate value for money for taxpayers.
It found the number of people receiving advice often fell far short of government predictions, for example, there was an 85% shortfall in the number of debt advice cases. The report also noted “surprising” cases where exceptional funding was not granted, for example, “an illiterate woman with learning, hearing and speech difficulties” facing a child contact application. Only 16 grants had been made by July 2014. The report concludes the scheme “is not acting as a safety net” and called for more highly trained staff to act as gatekeepers.
The report notes LASPO has led to advice “deserts” with law centres struggling to take up the slack. “We are not persuaded by the Minister's contention that people may not be accessing legal aid because they are getting all the legal advice they need from law centres and citizens advice bureaux… the extent of service available from not-for-profit organisations has been diminished by the legal aid cuts and they are struggling to meet increased demand.”
The Committee’s chair, Alan Beith MP, said the legal aid cuts had “limited access to justice for some of those who need legal aid the most and in some instances failed to prevent cases becoming more serious and creating further claims on the legal aid budget.”
Jenny Beck, co-chair of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG), says: “The report confirms what legal aid practitioners know – that victims of domestic violence cannot get the help or protection that they need. It is difficult, almost impossible for many people in crisis to obtain legal advice because of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.”
LAPG is due to launch a Manifesto for Legal Aid at the House of Commons next week.
Alistair MacDonald QC, chairman of the Bar, says: “The contents of this report were, unfortunately, entirely predictable. We need a commitment from all parties to approach justice differently.”
He added that both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have produced reports showing that the cuts hurt vulnerable people most, will not deliver the savings envisaged, have resulted in knock-on costs to other departments, and damage our system of justice.
The Bar Council points out that, since LASPO, litigants in person have increased by 30%, mediation cases have fallen by 38% instead of increasing by 74% as predicted by the Ministry of Justice, legal problems have become more complex due to cuts in frontline advice, domestic violence victims have had to pay to get the evidence they need to access legal aid, and the exceptional case funding mechanism which was designed to act as a safety net for 5,000 to 7,000 people has only funded 69 applications out of 1,520 made.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson says: “We protected civil legal aid so it remains available where legal help and advice is most needed. It is entirely untrue to allege people who are eligible for legal aid under LASPO did not get it.
“The government worked closely with organisations who provide advice and offer early intervention in disputes to ensure they have the full information they need to help people, and there is a dedicated 24/7 online service to help people understand if they qualify for civil legal aid and where advice is available if they don't.
“We are keeping these reforms under close review and have already made changes to address issues raised. We are also undertaking a comprehensive research programme to better understand why people choose to go court and how they deal with legal problems.”
